Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.

But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.

The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.

Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year’s midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.

The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.

Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.

“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said, referring to the NRA. “Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager’s amendment.”

ex hawaii election official now says if called as witness he will testify in court of law that Hawaii upper level officials knew OBAMA had no birth certificate, hospitols had no birth certificate, and back up his statement that OBAMA was not born in HAwaii !!

Dont you think that if any of this were true, that someone would have come forward long ago? What does congress have to gain by hiding this information? Why would the republican party remain silent on this if it were true? Why would Hillary Clinton remain silent - She had the most to lose. If there was even a hint of truth behind what you are saying, the news would be all over it. For a cover up this big to happen, 100s would need to be involved. What is in it for those helping the coverup? I know you want this to be true but in order for it to be true, there needs to be a benefit for those involved to remain silent.

So if a partucular organization has only been in existance for 9 years, and only has 900,000 members, it should be treated different from one that's been around for 10 years and has a million members?? WFT is the rationale for that?

What is it about the creatures who inhabit Congress...both parties...that impels them to consistently oppose things that would shed light on how things work? Why would any Congress-creature of either party object to the TOTAL transparency of EVERY $ given to ANY political campaign, unless they want to hide something?

I don't give a rat's behind who contributes to who, nor do I care home much it is. I DO want to know, however, who EACH AND EVERY contributor is, and how much they gave. That way I can assess whether or not each and every political candidate is being unduly influenced or not, and by who.

FULL DISCLOSURE should be the simple solution to campaign finance "reform". What's so bloody controversial about that??!!

It will probably end up exempting Obama's union buddies too! I am sure they wrote this language to get around the unions!

"The new agreement would exempt from the disclosure requirements organizations that have mare than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations."

Nobody seems to be asking if they think this will past muster with the Supreme Court. I am not sure how you can exempt some entities and not others, just because they are bigger?

For my entire life I have heard from the left that the "Repubs want to censure you, silence you, take away your liberties, etc." Now that they are in power, the Dems have all the subtlety of Hitler's brown shirts. And why do we, the people, need to be protected against free speech, while the union thugs always have an exemption carved out for them? When you go to vote in November, ask yourself, just which party claims that the other wants to take away your rights, and which party is actually in the process of doing it. These people need to be dragged from their offices and dealt with mercilessly.

This is an outrage. One of you geniuses at Politico please explain how, if you have members in all 50 states, the 1st amendment means one thing, but if you don't it means another. Maybe you could get Sheriff Joe to do a piece.

Neither. Ban them both. The ONLY money that should be going to politicans should be INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS FROM AMERICANS. Period. Everything transparent. Your name attached to the check. Do not allow huge sums to be funneled under the guise of a corporation, union, PAC, etc. You shouldn't be able to get TWO voices ... just your voice as an individual.

The people of the United States of America need to overrule the "monomaniacal" REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST Supreme Court. The REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST plants have been working for multinational corporations and the republican party ... not the people of the United States. Corporations are NOT people. They should NOT be able to give unlimited funds. The people lose their voice in government to corporations who may not even be from here. You could have Castro and Chavez create a corporation called WeLoveAmericaCo and put the financial backing of ENTIRE ENEMY COUNTRIES into our political system.

Whoever thought up this stupid exemption ought to be tossed out of Capitol Hill. And whoever votes for it ought also to be tossed out. But do you think that will happen? Not on your life. Each person thinks his or her congressperson is 'okay' and it's all the others who are corrupt. This particular clause was put into the bill because of the Republicans and some Right-leaning Democrats. I hope it goes down in flames!